Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2000
At 01:31 PM 3/31/00 -0700, Joseph N. Hall wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:22:35 -0500 dan@sidhe.org (Dan Sugalski) wrote:
>
>* At 01:01 PM 3/31/00 -0700, Joseph N. Hall wrote:
>
>* >I doubt that is really a problem for the ages, though. In the near
>* >future, if not now, caches will be large and/or capable enough that
>* >cache busting really isn't something to design against. Nevermind
>* >that there is one Perl and a zillion different cache architectures.
>*
>* Ick. No offense but I absolutely loathe that particular attitude. [...]
>* Perl itself is getting slower with each release and that's troublesome.
>* Machines get faster, but data volumes get larger faster. I may be unusual
>* in chugging through runs of 80G of data and 10-20M files at a shot, but not
>* *that* unusual.
>
>If it's a choice between "faster" and "more useful" in Perl, I'll come
>down on the side of "more useful" just about every time. That said,
>Perl has more speed and memory "issues" than it seems like it ought to.
>The huge growth in the core from 5.005 to 5.6 without any serious new
>fully-operational functionality is rather disappointing to me.
I'll disagree this time. We've added a lot of functionality (well, sort of)
to this release, and perl's overdue for a good performance boost. Honestly
I think a performance and stability work-through should be the primary
focus for the 5.8 release, with getting the current alpha/experimental
stuff either working or tossed as a secondary goal. We can add in more
functionality for 5.9/5.10.
What we really need is three or four people who can work on perl near
full-time for this, but that's not likely to happen, for economic reasons
if nothing else. :(
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk